Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Housing - From: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 67 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Regina (Gangera) v London Borough of Hounslow [2003] EWHC 794; [2003] HLR 1028
2003
Admn
Moses J
Housing, Human Rights
The claimant challenged the Act as being an unlawful discrimination. Held: The 1985 Act in allowing only one succession to a secure tenancy found a proper balance between the needs of the tenant's family and the duty of a local housing authority to manage its housing stock in the interests of the locality and of those in greatest need: "Every secure tenant, whether sole or joint, is limited to one assignment or other transmission of the secure tenancy. The rule limiting succession to one transmission applies to all secure tenants equally."
In proceedings between private parties the court does not act incompatibly with article 8 by making or enforcing a possession order without considering questions of proportionality, and it makes no difference that the landlord is a public authority.
Moses J said: "It is plain that Parliament had to strike a balance between security of tenure and the wider need for systematic allocation of the local authority's housing resources in circumstances where those housing resources are not unlimited. The striking of such a balance is pre-eminently a matter of policy for the legislature. The court should respect the legislative judgment as to what is in the general interest unless that judgment was manifestly without reasonable foundation."
Housing Act 1985 87 - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers


 
Regina (Price) v Carmarthenshire County Council [2003] EWCA 42 Admin
2003

Newman J
Housing
A gypsy applied for housing with the respondent authority, but did not wish to live in a house. They suggested that if the claimants had an aversion to accommodation in bricks and mortar then the offer of such accommodation could not amount to the offer of suitable alternative accommodation. Held. The submission was rejected. An offer of bricks and mortar was capable of being suitable alternative accommodation; but the court acknowledged that the requirement to respect the applicant's private and family life and home carried a positive obligation on the part of the public authority. The question therefore was whether the local authority had in fact given special consideration to the applicant as a gypsy and, if so, whether that consideration was lawful and adequate. The suggestion that the current English guidance that gypsies should be considered in the same way as any other applicant did not accord with the Strasbourg jurisprudence precisely because the local authority had to give special consideration to the applicant as a gypsy.
1 Citers


 
North Devon Homes Housing Association v Brazier [2003] HLR 905; [2003] EWHC 574 (QB)
2003
QBD
David Steel J
Housing, Discrimination
The tenant was guilty of nuisance, but her misbehaviour was attributable to her psychotic state – her "disability" within the 1995 Act. Held: Though a very pertinent factor to be taken into account may be a housing authority's obligations to other tenants on a housing estate and the interests of those other tenants, though the situation may be affected by the Act when the tenant suffers some mental impairment: "on the facts of the present case, the issue is one of fact: whether the breach of the tenancy terms was caused by the disability". Since the evidence showed that the tenant "was unable [due to her disability] to prevent herself from behaving in [the objectionable] manner" the 1995 Act was engaged, and the landlord had to establish sufficient justification to satisfy section 24(1)(b) of that Act if an order for possession was to be made. The 1995 Act did not bar all evictions but "only those which were not justified in the specific circumstances set out in section 24 and it "furnishes its own code for justified eviction which requires a higher threshold", a threshold higher than that in the Housing Act 1988.
Housing Act 1988 - Disability Discrimination Act 1995
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
North Hertfordshire District Council v Carthy and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 20
17 Jan 2003
CA

Housing

Housing Act 1985 S2G5
[ Bailii ]
 
B Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others [2003] EWCA Civ 281
22 Jan 2003
CA
Arden LJ Simon Brown LJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Notices were given which were incorrect. Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors.
Housing Act 1988 20 - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zaher v City of Westminster [2003] EWHC 101 (Admin)
28 Jan 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening); HL 13-Feb-2003 - [2003] UKHL 5; [2003] 1 All ER 739; Gazette, 03 April 2003; [2003] 2 WLR 388; [2003] 2 AC 430; [2003] ACD 41; [2003] NPC 21; [2003] HRLR 16; [2003] HLR 32; [2003] UKHRR 419; [2003] BLGR 205; 14 BHRC 400; [2003] Hous LR 20
 
Mitchell and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2003] EWHC 234 (Admin)
14 Feb 2003
Admn

Planning, Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Forbes v Lambeth London Borough Council; Regina (Forbes) v Lambeth London Borough Council; QBD 18-Feb-2003 - Times, 10 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 222 (Admin)
 
Al-Ameri, Osmani v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/London Borough of Harrow [2003] EWCA Civ 235; Times, 19 March 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1289
28 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Carnwath
Housing, Immigration
The applicants sought to assert a local connection, having been housed in the respondent's areas as destitute asylum seekers. Held: The accomodation was not one of the applicant's choice, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish a local connection under the Act. The respondent's decision to refer the applicants back to authorities in which they had had such accomodation was flawed because of the absence of that connection. The provision of interim accomodation by a local authority, which could establish such a connection, was not on a par because of the absence of choice. (Buxton LJ dissenting)
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 97(2)(a) - Housing Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mays, Regina (on the Application Of) v Brent [2003] EWHC 481 (Admin)
3 Mar 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Lester v The London Rent Assessment Committee [2003] EWCA Civ 319; Times, 25 March 2003
12 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Tuckey
Housing, Human Rights
The court faced the question of, whether if a landlord serves a notice on an assured tenant under section 13(2) of the Act proposing an increase in rent, that will be the rent unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice the tenant refers the notice to a rent assessment committee under 13(4). Does the word 'refer' refer to the receipt of a notice, or does it include it having been posted. If not the latter, should the provision be read down under the Human Rights Act 1988. Held: The question is not a true access to justice question since the tenant was not exercising a right until the procedure was implemented. The word had to be given its ordinary meaning unsupported by reference to the Form used. It means here that it must be received by the Rent Assessment Committee. The Form itself should be amended.
Housing Act 1988 13(4) - Human Rights Act 1998 3 - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 194)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Andy Coltrane v Janice Day Times, 15 April 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 342; Gazette, 15 May 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1379
14 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Wall
Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
In the course of possession proceedings for non payment of rent under an assured tenancy, the tenant gave the landlord a cheque which cleared the arrears. Held: The past course of dealings between the parties showed that the landlord had previously accepted cheques, and now required the landlord to accept payment by cheque. Payment by means of a cheque was made on the day the cheque was presented, but conditional until honoured. There was no reason to treat possession proceedings under the 1988 Act differently. The district judge had a discretion to adjourn which he should have exercised. Appeal allowed.
Housing Act 1988 9(1) Schedule 2 Part 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The London Borough of Hackney v Papinder Sareen [2003] EWCA Civ 351; Times, 09 April 2003
19 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Chadwick
Housing
The applicant had been found to be homeless, and not intentionally so, and entitled to housing assistance. He requested a review of a decision of the local authority not to refer his application for housing assistance to another authority. Held: The power to require a review was intended to protect an applicant for housing assistance against decisions which would move him from authority to authority against his will. It was not intended to allow him to control where he lived, using the authority as a search agent. If he wanted to be housed in another local authority he must move there first. There was no jurisdiction to require a review.
Housing Act 1996 202
[ Bailii ]
 
Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council v O'Sullivan and another Times, 27 March 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 371
25 Mar 2003
CA
Aldous, Waller, Arden LJJ
Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights
The council granted a tenancy to the husband many years ago. At various times the couple split up then came back together. The husband was rehoused, but at the time misled the council to say his wife was not living in the flat. When the council sought a possession order, she alleged the action was discriminatory, and breached her right to respect for private and family life. Held: At the time, it was common practice to grant a tenancy in the name of one spouse (the husband). The parties lived separate lives, even if in the same house. If it had know of the misrepresentation the council would not have transferred the tenancy for the husband. The council acted on the basis of the facts known to it. The decision was reasonable and the possession order stood. The husband had not been treated differently than she would have been.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 14
[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Chiltern District Council and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 508
26 Mar 2003
CA

Local Government, Benefits, Housing

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000
[ Bailii ]
 
Butler, Regina (on the Application Of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others [2003] EWHC 886 (Admin)
26 Mar 2003
Admn

Local Government, Planning, Housing

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alamo Housing Co-operative Ltd v Meredith and others [2003] EWCA Civ 495; Times, 21 April 2003; Gazette, 12 June 2003
4 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mance Mr Justice Richards Lord Justice Schiemann
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The local authority had let a row of houses to the claimant who then sublet the individual houses to the defendant tenants. The authority obtained possession under the head lease for redevelopment, but the tenants resisted giving possession, saying that at the time the possession proceedings had started, the claimant, its own lease having been terminated, no longer had any sufficient interest to found a claim for possession. Held: The terms of the lease anticipated that as the head tenant's lease was terminated it would itself recover possession from the sub tenants, and there existed therefore an implied licence in the head tenants to occupy the land sufficiently to exclude and seek possession from the defendants.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis [2003] EWCA Civ 496; Times, 17 April 2003; Gazette, 19 June 2003
9 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Housing, Local Government, Civil Procedure Rules
The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings. Held: The transfer moved tenants from the secure tenancy regime to the assured tenancy regime, with different notices and procedures. The notices were not significantly different. The court laid out a procedure to be followed which would allow substitution of the new landlord.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley v Ealing London Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 679
16 Apr 2003
CA

Housing

Housing Act 1985 Part XI
[ Bailii ]
 
Pulcini v Italy 59539/00; [2003] ECHR 186; [2003] ECHR 186
17 Apr 2003
ECHR
C.L. Rozakis, G. Bonello, P. Lorenzen, N. Vajic, S. Botoucharova, V. Zagrebelsky, E. Steiner, And Mr S. Nielsen
Human Rights, Housing
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
The applicant complained of undue delay in the court system effecting recovery of property she owned, and which she had let. Possession was first ordered in 1988. The bailiff's visits attempting to recover possession were not supported by police. She alleged breach of her article 1 and article 6 rights, having waited over ten years to succeed. Held: She had not been provided with a satisfactory or timely remedy. The court had previously decided for claimants in such cases and did so again. She was awarded a sum which was intended equitably to represent her losses of rent.
European Convention on Human Rights 1 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hijazi v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2003] EWCA Civ 692
7 May 2003
CA

Housing, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Bantamagbari, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWHC 1350 (Admin)
13 May 2003
Admn

Housing, Local Government

Housing Act 1996 184
[ Bailii ]
 
Abraha v Sterling Credit Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 761
19 May 2003
CA

Land, Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamid-Zadeh v Revens and others [2003] EWCA Civ 778
2 Jun 2003
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Wolters (London) Ltd , Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2003] EWHC 1465 (Admin)
2 Jun 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
M, Regina (on the Application Of) v Islington and Another [2003] EWHC 1388 (Admin)
5 Jun 2003
Admn

Immigration, Housing, Children

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another Times, 12 June 2003; Gazette, 14 August 2003
5 Jun 2003
QBD
Wilson J
Housing, Local Government, Immigration, Benefits
The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a flight back to Guyana for herself and her child. She appealed, saying that it might yet take a longer time for any order for her removal to come through. Held: The claimant was no longer lawfully present in the UK. There was statutory support for the withdrawal of support provided her human rights were not infringed, but the prohibition on support did not extend to her child, and support could be continued where the claimant had not failed to co-operate with attempts at her removal. The decision with respect to the claimant was lawful, but as regards the decision about the child, the local authority had failed to consider the rights of the child's father, and had obtained no evidence as to the child's possible future in Guyana. Their s17 assessment was flawed and set aside.
Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3) - Children Act 1989 17
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Howard De Walden Estates, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2003] EWHC 1455 (Admin)
6 Jun 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Southwark v Erekin [2003] EWHC 1765 (Ch)
24 Jun 2003
ChD
Laddie J
Housing
The Council appealed againt refusal of an order for possession of its property tenanted by the defendant. She was said to have obtained the tenancy by a fraudulent application.
[ Bailii ]
 
Higgs v Brighton and Hove City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 895; B2/2003/0324; Times, 11 July 2003; Gazette, 04 September 2003
30 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown (Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division) Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Kay
Housing
The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster? Held: There was in fact no explanation available for the loss, and it was not proper to require the applicant to provide one. Nevertheless, in this case, the applicant was already homeles by the time of the caravan being lost, and accordingly the appeal failed since his application failed under the earlier criteria.
Housing Act 1996 189(1)(d)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Park Lane Properties (Leeds) Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v Northern Rent Assessment Panel [2003] EWHC 1837 (Admin)
2 Jul 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth v Lindsay [2003] EWCA Civ 919
3 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Pill
Local Government, Housing

Housing Act 1996 167(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
C v London Borough of Lewisham [2003] EWCA Civ 927; Times, 12 August 2003; Gazette, 11 September 2003
4 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Dyson
Housing, Local Government
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become intentionally homeless. The authority refused to extend her time to request a review. She now appealed a similar refusal of the court. Held: In so far as the local housing authority was exercising an extra-statutory discretion, it was fully entitled to take it no further. The authority gave full reasons why the department was not prepared to accede to the request. This decision is even further beyond challenge by judicial review than a decision taken under s. 202(3).
Housing Act 1996 202 204
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application Of) v Southwark [2003] EWHC 1678 (Admin); Times, 30 July 2003; [2002] HLR 40
4 Jul 2003
Admn
Owen J
Housing, Prisons
A young offender was to be released subject to being tagged. He wished to apply for housing. Held: The claimant should be considered homeless. He had 'no accomodation available for his occupation' under the Act. Prison was not a right to occupy a cell, and was his continued detention would be the antithesis of a right to occupy.
Housing Act 1996 175(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth [2003] EWCA Civ 836; Times, 23 July 2003; [2004] BLGR 35
9 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Simon Brown Mr Justice Nelson
Immigration, Benefits, Housing
Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was provided accommodation by NASS, but was unhappy with it and sought assistance direct from the respondent council. Which was responsible? The council argued that the 1948 Act applied only to those whose disability directly affected there housing needs. Held: The argument failed in the light of the authorities. The council had responsibility.
National Asssistance Act 1948 21 - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bibi, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham [2003] EWHC 1860 (Admin)
11 Jul 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammadi v Anston Investments Limited and, Shellpoint Trustees Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 981
16 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice May Lord Justice Sedley
Housing, Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Taheri, Regina (on the Application of) v City of Westminster [2003] EWHC 1857 (Admin)
17 Jul 2003
Admn

Housing, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application of) v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] EWHC 1832 (Admin); Times, 11 September 2003; Gazette, 26 February 2004
24 Jul 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton, J
Benefits, Housing
The claimant appealed against rejection of his application for a grant in respect of works in his home for safety purposes. His son suffered a personality disorder resulting in aggressive behaviour. He sought a grant for the cost of creating separate bedrooms for the protection of the sibling. Held: The grants are mandatory, but could not be used to provide for the safety not of the person suffering disability, but of another member of the family. The authority had correctly considered the issues before it, and it had accepted that a separate bedroom would be of benefit to the disturbed son's own behavioural problems, but that did not go to his own safety.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 23
[ Bailii ]
 
Karner v Austria (2003) 38 EHRR 528; 40016/98; (2003) 2 FLR 623; [2003] ECHR 395; [2003] Fam Law 724; [2004] 2 FCR 563; 14 BHRC 674; [2004] 38 EHRR 24
24 Jul 2003
ECHR
C.L. ROZAKIS, P
Human Rights, Housing, Discrimination
A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners "pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of unmarried different-sex partners and unmarried same-sex partners, and that that view is supported by recommendations and legislation of European institutions". Held: The claim succeeded. As to the margin of appreciation the ECHR stated: "The Court can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment. It remains to be ascertained whether, in the circumstances of the case, the principle of proportionality has been respected. The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete measures may be used to implement it. In cases in which the margin of appreciation afforded to Member States is narrow, as [is] the position where there is a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realising the aim sought. It must also be shown that it was necessary to exclude persons living in a homosexual relationship from the scope of [the relevant provision] of the Rent Act in order to achieve that aim." The court expressly did not decide whether the applicant's case fell within the scope of 'family life' or 'private life'.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Parker v Parker [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)
24 Jul 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Estoppel, Housing
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time. Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Borough of Harrow v Qazi; HL 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] UKHL 43; Times, 01 August 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 792; Gazette, 02 October 2003; [2004] 1 AC 983; [2004] L and TR 9; [2003] 4 All ER 461; [2003] 3 EGLR 109; [2003] Fam Law 875; [2003] 2 FLR 973; [2004] 1 P and CR 19; [2003] HLR 75; [2003] HRLR 40; [2003] 3 FCR 43; [2003] UKHRR 974; [2003] NPC 101
 
Knight v Vale Royal Borough Council Times, 04 September 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1258; Gazette, 02 October 2003
31 Jul 2003
CA
Pill, Laws LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Housing
The claimant challenged a decision of the authority that she had made herself intentionally homeless.She had gone to a refuge, then to stay with her mother. She had been found to be intentionally homeless. She then found a shorthold tenancy. When that was coming to an end the authority notified her that she remained intentionally homeless. Held: The obtaining of the shorthold tenancy was capable of forming a break with whatever had happened beforehand, and that she had achieved a settled residence. It was not right to deduce from the fact that a maximum of six months only could be guaranteed that the accommodation was temporary, but such an occupation could not by law be a guarantee of having achieved a settled accommodation. It remained a question of fact and degree in the circumstances of each case.
Hosuing Act 1996 184(6) 204
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ekwuru v Westminster, City of [2003] EWCA Civ 1293
31 Jul 2003
CA

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
K v London Borough of Lambeth [2003] EWCA Civ 1150
31 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Kay
Housing, Benefits, Immigration, Human Rights
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing assistance pending decision on her removal. The authority refused assistance on the basis that she was wife of an EU national, but she was to be removed because that marriage was not genuine. Held: An asylum seeker is not to be equated with a foreign national seeking to establish a right of residence. Having abandoned the asylum aplication, the court could not make an decision assuming she could not return to her country of origin. Strasbourg jurisprudence does not require a claimant, seeking entry for family reasons, to be permitted to enter, or to remain here on public support, pending the resolution of her disputed claim. She had in the past demonstrated the ability to support herself, and the judge's finding that she might do so again was not irrational.
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 2
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Manchester City Council v Lee [2003] EWCA Civ 1256
7 Aug 2003
CA

Housing, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Maali, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth [2003] EWHC 2231 (Admin)
14 Aug 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Sandra Ison Unreported, 8 September 2003
8 Sep 2003

Platt J
Housing
(Romford County Court) "A judge who adjourns the hearing of a ground 8 possession claim solely in order to allow a defendant an opportunity to defeat that claim, whether by extracting payment from the housing benefit authority or from any other source, is choosing not to apply the law in force at the date of the hearing on the basis that he considers it to be lacking in justice. This is simply not a proper exercise of judicial discretion. It is an interference with the statutory scheme which gives rights to both landlords and tenants. If the scheme gives rise to injustice it is for Parliament and not for the court to address that issue."
Housing Act 1988
1 Citers



 
 Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham; Admn 10-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2326 (Admin)
 
Bilverstone, Regina (on the Application Of) v Oxford City Council [2003] EWHC 2434 (Admin)
10 Oct 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie; CA 10-Oct-2003 - Times, 30 October 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1602; Gazette, 20 November 2003
 
Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWHC 2266 (Admin)
13 Oct 2003
Admn
Keith J
Housing

Housing Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Erskine, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth and Another [2003] EWHC 2479 (Admin)
14 Oct 2003
Admn

Housing, Human Rights

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Baker, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 2511 (Admin)
15 Oct 2003
Admn

Housing, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Moreland Properties (UK) Ltd v Dhokia and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1639
21 Oct 2003
CA

Housing

Rent Act 1977 137(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
Saxonbest Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley [2003] EWHC 2508 (Admin)
21 Oct 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Orejudos v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2003] EWCA Civ 1967
22 Oct 2003
CA

Housing

Housing Act 1996 202
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest [2003] EWCA Civ 1473; Times, 31 October 2003
23 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Waller
Benefits, Immigration, Housing
A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without "adequate" accommodation. What was such accommodation? Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was adequate to place them immediately in temporary accommodation which would be adequate in the short term, pending the finding of properly suitable accommodation for the longer term. A balancing exercise had to be made. The adequacy of the temporary accommodation was not to be tested as to its adequacy for non-disabled children, but rather for the disabilities of these particular children.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co [2003] EWHC 2493 (QB); Times, 07 November 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 1240
30 Oct 2003
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Litigation Practice, Housing
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was voidable, being based upon a common mistake of law. Held: "Courts should be very slow to set aside and declare compromise agreements void on the ground of alleged common mistakes of fact or law. Before declaring a compromise agreement void the court must be satisfied that the mistake, in this case of law, was both common and fundamental to the making of the compromise agreement or to echo Bell v. Lever Brothers "was it the common assumption or pre-condition upon which the compromise agreement was made? " In this case the common mistaken assumption as to the law was the fundamental basis for and precondition of the compromise agreement, indeed its only springboard. The appeal was dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Butler, Regina (on the Application of) v Bath and North East Somerset District Council and others Times, 04 November 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1614
30 Oct 2003
CA
Peter Gibson, Waller, Carnwath, LJJ
Planning, Local Government, Housing
The authority was considering the provision of sites for Gypsies and other travellers within the context of their structure plan. The national policy envisaged two provisions, a listing of potential sites, and the laying down of policy criteria. A panel had recommended that more be done to support local authorities, including the recommendation of sites. The authority set out a plan that the need should be satisfied within local plans. Held: The departure from the recommendation must have been a deliberate one. Before taking that departure, it was obliged to have prepared a list of departures from the recommendations, for comment. It had not done so. The procedural obligations had not been met.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
O, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Haringey and Another [2003] EWHC 2798 (Admin)
25 Nov 2003
Admn

Children, Housing, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Chowdhury and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Newham [2003] EWHC 2837 (Admin)
27 Nov 2003
Admn

Housing

[ Bailii ]
 
Tiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1759
4 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller The Vice-Chancellor
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase the reversion, which did not proceed. Held: subject to the effect of section 17 of the 1954 Act, the Lessors became entitled to an equitable interest in the Lease commensurate with that of a purchaser under a binding contract for sale. The section did not invalidate either the provisions of clause 5 or any of the steps which should have been taken thereunder and therefore has no effect on the creation of the equitable interest which had priority over any interest of either of Tiffany or Ms Chantry.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part I 17 - Rent Act 1977
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Marilyn Hislop [2003] EWHC 2944 (Ch)
5 Dec 2003
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lindsay
Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Housing Act 1985
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bradney, Birmingham City Council v Birmingham City Council, McCann [2003] EWCA Civ 1783; [2004] HLR 27
9 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Housing, Human Rights
Birmingham Council had granted H & W a joint secure tenancy of a three-bedroom home. The marriage broke down and W left with the two children. She obtained a non-molestation order and an ouster order against him. H tried to force his way into the home. W applied to the council, and it provided her with alternative accommodation. H returned to the house and then applied to the council for a mutual exchange with another tenant because the house was larger than he required. An officer persuaded W to surrender the tenancy, but did not advise her that this would leave H homeless. The council obtained an order for possession. Held. H argued that in seeking to obtain from the wife the notice to quit the council had circumvented the statutory powers in relation to recovery of possession of a secure tenancy. Article 8 was not available as a defence even though the property was H's "home" under the Convention.
The council had acted within its powers and the notice to quit at common law terminated the secure tenancy. Section 82 did not apply. The notice had effect though W signed without appreciating the consequences for H. This was not a "wholly exceptional" case where, for example, something had happened since the service of the notice to quit which had fundamentally altered the rights and wrongs of the proposed eviction, and the council might be required to justify its claim to override the Article 8 right.
Housing Act 1985
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Newham v Amrani Kibata [2003] EWCA Civ 1785
9 Dec 2003
CA
Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Mummery
Housing, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.